Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Leopaul Saint-Lisma, a noncitizen from Haiti, entered the United States on October 26, 2021, and was granted conditional parole. On October 6, 2026, he was arrested and redetained without notice explaining why his parole had been revoked. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under ECF No. 1, claiming the government violated the Fifth Amendment by arbitrarily detaining him without notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The government acknowledged that Saint-Lisma had been released on parole, conceded that the court had granted petitions with similar facts and legal issues, and stated that it did not oppose the petition, deferring to the court on appropriate relief. The government further noted that Saint-Lisma had no criminal history and that its counsel had not been provided with any information indicating he was a danger to the community.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the petition in part on the Due Process claim, adopting its prior reasoning in Tulyakov v. LaRose to find that, under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing factors, the petitioner's liberty interest and the procedural protections owed to that interest outweighed the government's enforcement interest. The court emphasized that the government did not contend any changed circumstances warranted redetention or that Saint-Lisma posed a danger to the community or a flight risk. The writ was issued, and the government was ordered to immediately release Saint-Lisma from custody on any preexisting conditions.
Although Saint-Lisma had been granted conditional parole, the court used analogous humanitarian parole law as a guideline for the procedures the government must follow in any future redetention. Should the government attempt to revoke parole in the future, it must provide a written revocation notice issued by a statutorily authorized official that provides individualized grounds for termination, and it must allow the petitioner an opportunity to rebut the revocation. The court also ordered the government to provide reporting instructions, directed the parties to file a joint statement regarding satisfaction of the writ by November 3, 2026, at 5 p.m., and retained jurisdiction to enforce the writ. Because the petition was granted on the Due Process claim, the court declined to reach the merits of the petitioner's other claims and dismissed Count Two without prejudice. The petitioner was permitted to move for an award of fees within thirty days, with the government to respond within fourteen days and the petitioner allowed seven days to reply.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted the habeas petition in part on Fifth Amendment due process grounds, finding that the petitioner's liberty interest outweighed the government's enforcement interest under the Mathews v. Eldridge framework.
- The government conceded it did not oppose the petition and acknowledged the petitioner had no criminal history and was not shown to be a danger to the community.
- The court ordered the petitioner's immediate release on preexisting conditions and required that any future parole revocation include written notice with individualized grounds and an opportunity to rebut.
- The court declined to reach the merits of the petitioner's other claims and dismissed Count Two without prejudice, while retaining jurisdiction to enforce the writ.
- The petitioner was given leave to move for an award of fees within thirty days of the order, and the parties were directed to file a joint statement regarding satisfaction of the writ by November 3, 2026, at 5 p.m.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces a growing body of decisions in the Southern District of California holding that the government cannot redetain noncitizens on parole without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard. By adopting its prior reasoning in Tulyakov v. LaRose and citing related decisions such as Mendez-Ramirez v. Casey, Araujo v. LaRose, and Noori v. LaRose, the court signaled continued judicial skepticism toward arbitrary immigration detention practices.
The order is also notable for the government's concession: it did not oppose the petition and acknowledged the petitioner posed no demonstrated danger or flight risk. The court's requirement of written revocation notice with individualized grounds and an opportunity to rebut sets a procedural floor for future parole revocations, drawing on humanitarian parole regulations as an analogous framework even where conditional parole is at issue.